https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205883 Exemption for intravenous fluids depended on the wording of the relevant notifications. The earlier notifications under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. read with Notification No. 36/2000-C.E. were unrestricted, so fluids mixed with medicines and drugs remained eligible up to 28-2-2001. From 1-3-2001, Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. confined the exemption to intravenous fluids used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment, and that restricted language could not be expanded to cover therapeutic medicaments. In a remand proceeding, additional evidence could not be introduced beyond the limited scope fixed by the remand order, and the request was dismissed. Penalty was not sustainable because the dispute turned on interpretation of exemption notifications, so the penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205883 Exemption for intravenous fluids depended on the wording of the relevant notifications. The earlier notifications under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. read with Notification No. 36/2000-C.E. were unrestricted, so fluids mixed with medicines and drugs remained eligible up to 28-2-2001. From 1-3-2001, Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. confined the exemption to intravenous fluids used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment, and that restricted language could not be expanded to cover therapeutic medicaments. In a remand proceeding, additional evidence could not be introduced beyond the limited scope fixed by the remand order, and the request was dismissed. Penalty was not sustainable because the dispute turned on interpretation of exemption notifications, so the penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205883